Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Does defendant Chicago Pneumatic's flagrant violation of the rules of discovery require that Chicago Pneumatic be compelled to produce the concealed evidence (in this case all originalsurveillance videotapes obtained by defendant Chicago Pneumatic
and/or its agents)?
II. Are plaintiff Simpsons entitled to a new trial as a result of defendant Chicago Pneumatic's flagrant violation of the rules of discovery?
III. Are plaintiffs entitled to recover attorneys fees for their efforts to compel defendant Chicago Pneumatic to produce the concealed surveillance videotapes?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ruling on Plaintiffs' post-trial motion to compel unused video not relating to Plaintiff Simpson or his injuries, especially when damages were not an issue where the jury found for the Defendant on
liability?
2. Did the trial court properly deny Plaintiffs' post-trial motion?